Good talk on blocks

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:23 pm

The late Col Jeff Cooper clearly captured the essence of immediate thinking – positive action in the face of a threat.

As you train…if you think only in terms of defensive action and positioning …. You will be locked in defensive/reactive mode waiting for the bad guys to make their next move… this can become compounded by the way we train.

Why? Because we never train how to recognize the clues of when an attack is stalking you… is incipient or it has already begun….which would really be an impossibility in the general class format we all use...comfortable, safe, empowering etc./without any reality components. And if we changed the ways we are used to train, we would probably lose most students.

On the other hand, look at the popularity these days of krav maga centers everywhere in prime street level locations.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:33 pm

Getting into a fight with anyone is scary/worrisome for a number of reasons...injury/death/horrendous legal bills and maybe prison sentence...yet when the time comes you need to make a choice or you will freeze and get hurt pretty bad.

People possess a central nervous system that it is
extremely vulnerable to judicious trauma you take to it by the appropriate weapon, your physical limitations notwithstanding.

You should train to ‘care less’ how big and strong and dangerous your enemy about to face you really is…because you have mindset to bury him in ‘his tracks’ before he is able to make his move...if legally justified in doing so with the appropriate 'continuum'...you may thing you can do some damage with your empty hands? You better be right about this belief or they'll hand your head to you on a platter.

Understand the ‘AOJ’ triad… Ability…Opportunity…Jeopardy_

Can anyone give me examples of the “A” leg of the triad?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:35 pm

wes tasker »

Can anyone give me examples of the “A” leg of the triad?


I'll take a stab at this... My first thoughts are that Ability stands for having the abilities to stop the immediate threat at hand.

These abilities can range from the physical (having the mechanics to hurt someone with a strike, lock, etc.), mental (being able to diffuse with verbal tactics and the "mindset" to do what is necessary to nullify the threat), and spiritual (for lack of a better word) where one is set on repercussions etc. of violence (as much as one can be without having been through it...).

I would also include the whole range of the scenario being pre-conlict indicators (assuming it's not an ambush), the conflict itself up to resolution, and post-conflict strategy.

Examples could range all the way from verbally diffusing a situation, picking up on pre-assault cues and knocking the guy out and down and using Nike-fu, to using more "serious" force in the case of ambush, weapons, and/or multiple attackers.

Lastly, within the triangle that Van Canna Sensei mentioned: Ability - Opportunity - Jeopardy, I see not distinct lines between them, but rather nebulous borders that have each feeding into the others as a necessary whole.

-wes tasker
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:01 am

wes tasker »

Interesting.... I just researched the triad and found that it refers to "justified use of force". When I read it at first and typed my first response I was looking at the triad from the point of view of the first-person rather than the attacker.

I've been thinking about that and it seems that my ideas of when I am justified in defending myself with force meet those criteria - I just have them "defined" to myself differently and the triad seemed to fit well into a model of defining the abilities needed to respond etc.

Interesting "prod" from Van Canna Sensei that got me thinking.... Thank you.

-wes tasker
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:07 am

Thanks for the post Wes…good thinking on both sides of the box…

AOJ is the ‘legal ghost’ hovering over any confrontation…

What follows is from my studies of the ‘law of self defense’ ….

I am not a lawyer but will report the ‘essence’ of the concepts… I read

As always…nobody should rely on any of this unless first consulting an attorney well schooled and experienced in self defense matters…

‘A’ _ ability of the attacker[s] to cause harm _

Such as the wielding of a deadly weapon …here alone…it gets sticky_

Even objects not normally recognized as ‘deadly weapons’ can be found to be such by the courts if the attacker wields it appropriately.

i.e., a sharp stick, a rock, rolled up newspaper etc.

Remember that certain objects like dirks, flapjacks …are held to be deadly weapons as a matter of law. You can be charged even if smash someone down into the ground or up against a wall.

The trier of fact will consider the nature of the object, the manner in which it is used, and all ‘other facts’ relevant to the issue. [Think situational]

Any object, including a fist, can be a deadly weapon if it is used or intended to be used in a manner capable of producing death or serious bodily harm.[another reason to consider not using a fist]

The jury will look at the manner and means of their use, the wounds inflicted etc.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:14 am

And finally we have the last leg… ‘Jeopardy’ …

This means that you, the defender, must perceive that the attacker does in fact threaten [seriously jeopardize] your safety…placing you in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

And most important…you must train to learn to determine if the jeopardy leg does in fact present itself and to later articulate such determination to police through your legal representative.

Remember to keep your mouth shut after initially blurting that the punks said they were going to kill you and that you were in fear of your life when you attempted to defend yourself.

Grab your lips with your fingers [Mas Ayoob] and ‘zip’ your mouth shut as logorrhea wants to spill out. Tell the LEO that you are not feeling well, can’t breathe…chest pains…and want to go to the hospital...because most likely you will need medical care from the mental and physical shock of the street attack, and you will need to be evaluated medically lest something serious develops in the aftermath...if you have health insurance the ambulance bill will be taken care of.

it is here that the citizen who has spent time envisioning various self defense scenarios and applying his knowledge of tactics and the law of self defense to such scenarios, will possess true advantage over those who have not.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:18 am

A book good to read… is ‘The law of self defense’ A Guide for the armed citizen…by Attorney Andrew Branca. A book recommended by Lethal Force Institute.

We talk about being ready and willing to learn to fight for defensive reasons, but willingness means other things besides being prepared to
punch, strike, cut or shoot.

It also means being willing to learn and train tactical and legal concepts. Most of us in Uechi, as an example, are only interested in practicing the system and eschew other aspects of engagement…. “Not needed” is the usual complacency.

Information is power and we can never have too much power when we’re at risk of succumbing physically, legally and financially.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:20 am

Self Defense Law and the Martial Artist
by Peter Hobart, Esq.


Martial arts teachers’ liability:
Under the Theory of Agency, the principal is liable for unlawful acts which he causes to be done through an agent.

There are three possible ways in which a martial arts instructor might be held liable as the principal for the unlawful acts of his students, as agents. First, if the instructor appears to ratify or approve of unlawful conduct, he may be held liable for the commission of such acts.

Thus, a dojo which encourages the use of excessive force, or lethal force in inappropriate situations may be seen to ratify and approve of unlawful conduct.

Similarly, an instructor who continues to teach a student who has abused his knowledge may be held responsible, if not liable, for subsequent torts.

Second, an instructor may be held liable for having entrusted a student with ‘an extremely dangerous instrumentality’. "[W]hen an instrumentality passes from the control of a person, his responsibility for injuries inflicted by it ceases.

However, when an injury is caused by an exceptionally dangerous instrumentality, or one which may be dangerous if improperly used, a former owner or possessor may ... be charged with responsibility for [its] use...."

The implications for instructors who teach potentially lethal techniques is clear.

Finally, an instructor may be liable for harm to the student or other parties as a result of negligent instruction.

Anyone who holds himself out as an expert capable of giving instruction is expected to conform to the standards of his professional community.

Thus, any instructor who, by his own negligence, fails to provide, teach and require adequate safe-guards and supervision, may be liable for any resulting injury.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:26 am

Atty Hobart

The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard.

The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand.

In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him.

The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern.

Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:29 am

Mary Chant »

I have to say that a couple of the things you have mentioned, Canna-Sensei, have made me feel pretty good about how I approach things, while a couple others you mentioned highlighted weak spots or gaps in my training and knowledge. Your "prodding" has been effective with me.

I made a public commitment earlier in the year to take on a couple of more reality based self-defense projects before 2007 ended, but admittedly have done very little outside my normal training. It's only August, though, so I can still reach my goal.

You mentioned a couple of books. Where do you suggest someone who has primarily trained in a traditional (yet open minded) school begin? I do have experience with handguns, rifles and shotguns, but only in target-shooting (standing up, sitting, lying on stomach, etc.), no stress induced (probably not the right term--sorry) training. My goal is to become more well-rounded in self and family protection

Thank you.

Mary Chant
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:12 pm

Professor Meyers writes

Intuition has the endorsement of many heavyweights. Pioneering psychologist Carl Jung called it one of the four ways people function, along with feeling, thinking and sensing. Psychologist Marcia Emery, author of three books on intuition, calls it "the deepest wisdom of the human soul."

But many urge caution. "Intuition makes people feel more powerful, more effective," says Stuart Vyse, a psychologist at Connecticut College in New London, Conn. "But it has been shown over and over again that gut reactions are not accurate. It is a mistake to base a decision on a gut feeling."

Myers says he and other researchers are not trying to destroy intuition. He applauds its "unbidden insights and inspirations." He aims instead, he says "to fortify our intuition, to sharpen our thinking and to deepen our wisdom."
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:22 pm

As published in Black Belt magazine

Rules to live by:

1. Don’t start anything. Under the law you don’t want to be the aggressor.

2. Try to retreat. It’s almost always better to try and get out of the situation _ even if the law in your jurisdiction doesn’t require it.


3. Raise your hands up to head level as if to say ‘I don’t want any of this’ _ That action shows the witnesses that you are not the aggressor and puts you in a ready position.

4. Don’t tell him what you are going to do. Saying things like ‘I am going to tear you apart’ _ makes you appear as the aggressor.

Even saying ‘if you attack me I’ll be forced to break your arms in three places won’t help your cause because it won’t excuse you from following through with the threat and it will be further evidence that you weren’t afraid for your safety and therefore possibly you weren’t justified in using force.

5. Don’t strike until the danger is imminent. You don’t necessarily have to wait until he throws the first punch but you should wait until it is obvious he’s about to do so.


6. Use force that is only necessary and proportionate. If the guy just slaps you or ‘shoulder bumps’ you don’t crush his trachea and rain elbow strikes on his head unless it is a David-Goliath situation.


7. When the original threat is over stand down. If it possible to walk away from the fight without the guy coming after you _ especially if he verbally gives up _ you should do so.

8. Don’t leave the scene. Flight after a fight can be used to infer guilt. You are more likely to be charged if the police must track you down.

Scott Marrs_ Andy McGill

~~

If we play the tough guy, karate macho man, giving witnesses the impression we were not really afraid when we used 'self defense' implements...it will be difficult to convince a judge/jury otherwise.

And on the 'don't leave the scene' It all depends on how safe you will be if you stick around...
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:24 pm


It should be obvious that the law is never, ever, EVER going to be on your side if you're the aggressor and you use those neat new moves you learned in Kick-Butt Jutsu class to beat the crap out of that annoying guy sitting down the bar from you.

Never. No matter how much you insist he deserves it. Not even if he said nasty things about your wife, sister, and mother.

You are also allowed to defend yourself from imminent attack. The law is a bit trickier on this point. It seems pretty simple on the surface: you can act if and when you know you're about to be attacked, right?

The problem is whether a jury agrees, after hearing you, your (imminent) attacker's, and the police officer's side of the story, that you were about to be attacked.

You don't have to be able to convince your friends or family about this, and it doesn't matter how obvious it seems to you. What matters, in the eyes of the law, is whether you can convince a jury of your peers - 12 strangers.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:26 pm


Sometimes it's pretty clear: the guy is charging toward you, screaming at the top of his lungs, swinging a machete, or he's put up his fists and is dancing around you trying to "fake" you out.


But sometimes it's not so clear.

A jury will be asked to judge either subjectively or objectively whether or not an assault was imminent.

By objectively, I mean that the jurors will decide whether the average, ordinary, reasonably sane person, if he was put in the same situation at the time of the incident, would have also believed that he or she was about to be attacked.


Many legal experts believe that there is quite a bit open to interpretation in this case.

Your lawyer may also choose to persuade the jury subjectively. Each juror will be asked to pretend he or she is you and guess as to your state of mind: did you really honestly think or fear that you were about to be attacked? This will vary according to who you are.

For instance, my mother is 70 years old, 4 feet 11 inches, and 80 pounds soaking wet. If a large, unshaven man wearing ripped leathers lumbers threateningly toward her, and she responds by whipping out her can of mace and spraying him and then kicking him in the groin (go Mom!), a jury might decide that my mother was being reasonable in fearing for her safety - especially if she had previously been the victim of a violent crime.


On the other hand, if my former college roommate - 6 foot 3 inches, a former football player who is still in fairly good physical shape - responds similarly, the jury might subjectively decide that John (not his real name) was not being reasonable in assuming that he was about to be attacked.

It is NOT self defense, even if the other guy swung first, if the reason the guy was trying to bash your brains in was because you called him a racial or religious epithet and proceeded to suggest that you have intimate knowledge of his mother's sexual habits.

You cannot provoke someone into taking a swing at you just so you can apply a flying arm bar and stomp on his ribs, then protest that it was only self defense since he attacked first. To be sure, the other guy will be arrested. But so will you.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:29 pm

Criminals generally seize the tactical advantage of initiative, in both mindset and violence; while Leo’s and citizens are burdened with reactive assessment, and proper force reaction. There's public safety that good guys must consider and bad guys don’t (Innocent bystanders).

Bad guys are not "better shots... or better fighters”, but they have far less impedance in their violent actions. [Mostly because they have nothing to lose]

Any time you are ordered to line up against the wall, get in the trunk, get down on the floor, etc., it is time to make a stand right then and there.
__________________

When

Anything, anywhere can go bad suddenly even from a good ‘normal’ start.

You try to avoid, you try to be grey… but when violence starts or is about to start_ then violence IS the answer, and it’s the ONLY answer. If
you don't know how to use violence then you're screwed --
and very likely dead! _

“Light many lamps and gather ‘round his bed. Lend him your eyes, warm blood, and will to live. But death replied, ‘I choose him.’ So he went, and there was silence in the summer night. Silence and safety. And the veils of sleep. And then far away, the thudding of the guns.”
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56708
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron